He gave the police his name

[Abby Normal]

I am intrigued as to motive, though, which I why I've remained engaged. I mean, he certainly seems to be highly motivated, as evidenced by the degree of research he has undoubtedly undertaken and the colossal number of threads he's started.

I did ask him once, only half jokingly, whether he might be Bruce Robinson: an author who is known to have done a huge amount of research and, apparently, as a disdainful view of Ripperologists. Of course, he denied it...well sort of, in an abstract, metaphorical sort of way!

In fact, continuing the existentialist theme, I'm starting to wonder if "Pierre", like his "theory"and "suspect", might be simply a metaphor.

Happy New Year Abby!

I recall when "Pierre" started his first thread-many moons ago now- entitled "I think I Have Found Him," you replied, "Great, who is it?" I bet you didn't think you'd be waiting this long for a reply, especially as it now seems that the "suspect" is "Metaphorical"!

Hi johnG
Same to you!

"metaphorical suspect". I love it! LOL!
We've reached new heights!

[Abby Normal]

No need, I've already calculated it.

It's 99.9%.

Haha! I'll add another 9 or two to that! As it seems that Pierre's suspect is metaphorical, or perhaps metaphysical.

[SuspectZero]

Admin has indicated that Pierre hasn't really broken any rules of the forum, besides annoy people with his/her insufferable attitude of "I know something you don't know!", and I think this is true, having been here long enough to see a few personal attacks which were of banning quality. (Remember the poster who had an obsession with the correct spelling of British English words?)

I think Casebook has lately become less about finding the identity of Jack the Ripper, and more about finding the identity of Pierre the Poster.

I will admit I share John G.'s curiousity about Pierre's motivations, but I think we need to perhaps start a boycott of his threads, and ignore his posts in other threads. Trying to debate him, joking about him, etc., isn't working-- so let's simply stop responding.

I've been following these many postings by Pierre and the reactions of various people to them. Pat's suggestion is the best one. If you want to change his behavior, you need to modify your approach to dealing with it. Right now he's thriving on the attention he gets for being so vague. I suggest you ignore his open ended postings and if and when he has something meaningful to say that we can examine, we can respond appropriately. Right now some people are hanging on his every posting.

[JadenCollins]

Suspiciously like Prater's cat, Diddles, 'cept Diddles was black so,
.....oh, silly me, of course...Diddles in disguise, with stripes on!
(Sounds almost like a Beatles song)

It's Sir Diddles for you. That's a mug shot of Diddles in pj's!
Prater caught him that night sneaking in a few minutes later after MJK's scream!

Those cats in 1888 were vicious animals!
At midnight they become WERECATS!

[Garry Wroe]

Today I have been examining a data source from 1888. I have been looking at this very briefly before and I thought there was nothing specific about this source. But I made an analysis of it today - and it contains the full name of the person I think was the killer.

Then it's simple, Pierre: withhold the name of your 'suspect' but post the letter. If anyone else can discern the name of a police official from within the text you might well be on to something. If not, you'll have a surefire indication that your 'evidence' is nothing of the kind. You'll also preserve the identity of your man into the bargain.

Failing that, I'd be interested to see an explanation of the methodology you propose to use when subjecting this letter to a statistical analysis.

[Purkis]

I've been following these many postings by Pierre and the reactions of various people to them. Pat's suggestion is the best one. If you want to change his behavior, you need to modify your approach to dealing with it. Right now he's thriving on the attention he gets for being so vague. I suggest you ignore his open ended postings and if and when he has something meaningful to say that we can examine, we can respond appropriately. Right now some people are hanging on his every posting.

Spot on, SZ. So simple really.

[David Orsam]

I'm immune from having to boycott Pierre's threads because I'm supposedly on his ignore list so it doesn't matter how much I post in them.

That being so, it is worth noting that, in the OP, Pierre added a further false representation to his growing list of false representations. He said that a data source from 1888:

"contains the full name of the person I think was the killer".

Predictably, this turns out to be untrue. Had it not been for Steve directly asking if this name was supposed to be written in "metaphorical language" I wonder if Pierre would ever have told us.

[John G]

I'm immune from having to boycott Pierre's threads because I'm supposedly on his ignore list so it doesn't matter how much I post in them.

That being so, it is worth noting that, in the OP, Pierre added a further false representation to his growing list of false representations. He said that a data source from 1888:

"contains the full name of the person I think was the killer".

Predictably, this turns out to be untrue. Had it not been for Steve directly asking if this name was supposed to be written in "metaphorical language" I wonder if Pierre would ever have told us.

Another well-spotted contradiction!

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Pierre;366686]

I will give you the probability that my interpretation is wrong.

Regards, Pierre

well we already know what you will say about the probability you are wrong.

[GUT]

No need, I've already calculated it.

It's 99.9%.

That's generous!

[David Orsam]

That's generous!

I probably should have mentioned that one needs to factor in an allowable margin of error in my calculation of 0.1%.

[GUT]

I probably should have mentioned that one needs to factor in an allowable margin of error in my calculation of 0.1%.

or even 1% and that makes 99.9 believable

[David Orsam]

or even 1% and that makes 99.9 believable

You mean a range of between 98.9% and 100.9%???

[GUT]

You mean a range of between 98.9% and 100.9%???

towards the higher end. But not as low as your original 99.9

[David Orsam]

towards the higher end. But not as low as your original 99.9

Yes, I was probably being a bit too generous.